The  2015  Amendments  to  the  Federal  Rules  of  Civil  Procedure  

1 .

Shira A. Scheindlin United States District Judge Southern District of New York

§  Rules  1,  4(m),  16(b)  and  26(f)  –  Cooperation  and  Active  Case  Management  

§  Rules  26(b)(1)  and  26(c)(1)  –  Proportionality  and  Allocation  of  Expenses  

§  Rules  26(d)(2)  and  34(b)(2)  –  Early  Requests  for  Production  and  Responses  and  Objections  

§  Rule  37(e)  –  Curative  Measures  and  Remedies  for  Loss  of  ESI  

2 .

The  New  Rules  Address  4    Major  Topics  

Scope  and  Purpose.  These  rules  govern  the  procedure  in  all  civil  actions  and  proceedings  in  the  United  States  district  courts,  except  as  stated  in  Rule  81.  They  should  be  construed,  administered,  and  employed  by  the  court  and  the  parties  to  secure  the  just,  speedy,  and  inexpensive  determination  of  every  action  and  proceeding.  

•  There  is  now  an  explicit  reference  to  “cooperation”  in  the  Advisory    Committee  Note  to  Rule  1.    

3

New  Rule  1  

•  New  Rule  4(m):    Time  to  serve  summons  on  defendant  is  reduced  from  120  to  90  days  after  the  complaint  is  filed    

•  New  Rule  16(b)(2):    Time  to  issue  the  scheduling  order  is  reduced  from  120  to  90  days  after  defendant  is  served,  or  from  90  to  60  days  after  defendant  appears  

4

Tightening  Up  of  Certain  Timeframes  

Scheduling  Order.  Except  in  categories  of  actions  exempted  by  local  rule,  the  district  judge  –  or  a  magistrate  judge  when  authorized  by  local  rule  –  must  issue  a  scheduling  order:  

(A)  after  receiving  the  parties’  report  under  Rule  26(f);  or  

(B)  after  consulting  with  the  parties’  attorneys  and  any  unrepresented  parties  at  a  scheduling  conference  or  by  telephone,  mail,  or  other  means.  

5

New  Rule  16(b)(1)(B)  

(B)  Permitted  Contents.  The  scheduling  order  may:  *  *  *  

(iii)  provide  for  disclosure,  discovery,  or  preservation  of  electronically  stored  information;  

(iv)  include  any  agreements  the  parties  reach  for  asserting  claims  of  privilege  or  of  protection  as  trial-­‐preparation  material  after  information  is  produced,  including  agreements  reached  under  Federal  Rule  of  Evidence  502;  

(v)  direct  that  before  moving  for  an  order  relating  to  discovery,  the  movant  must  request  a  conference  with  the  court;  

6

New  Rule  16(b)(3)(B)  

Discovery  Plan.  A  discovery  plan  must  state  the  parties’  views  and  proposals  on:  *  *  *  

(C)  any  issues  about  disclosure,  discovery,  or  preservation  of    electronically  stored  information,  including  the  form  or  forms  in  which  it  should  be  produced;  

(D)  any  issues  about  claims  of  privilege  or  of  protection  as  trial-­‐preparation    materials,  including  –  if  the  parties  agree  on  a  procedure  to  assert  these  claims  after  production  –  whether  to  ask  the  court  to  include  their  agreement  in  an  order  under  Federal  Rule  of  Evidence  502;  

 

7

New  Rule  26(f)(3)  

Scope  in  General.  Unless  otherwise  limited  by  court  order,  the  scope  of  discovery  is  as  follows:  Parties  may  obtain  discovery  regarding  any  nonprivileged  matter  that  is  relevant  to  any  party’s  claim  or  defense  and  proportional  to  the  needs  of  the  case,  considering  the  importance  of  the  issues  at  stake  in  the  action,  the  amount  in  controversy,  the  parties’  relative  access  to  relevant  information,  the  parties’  resources,  the  importance  of  the  discovery  in  resolving  the  issues,  and  whether  the  burden  or  expense  of  the  proposed  discovery  outweighs  its  likely  benefit.  Information  within  this  scope  of  discovery  need  not  be  admissible  in  evidence  to  be  discoverable.  

8

New  Rule  26(b)(1)  

•  “Subject  matter”  discovery  is  eliminated  entirely  and  the  “reasonably  calculated”  language  is  removed  and  clarified    

•  Proportionality  factors  are  moved  from  Rule  26(b)(2)(C)  into  Rule  26(b)(1),  reordered  (i.e.,  “the  importance  of  the  issues  at  stake  in  the  action”  is  moved  to  first  in  the  list),  and  a  new  factor  is  added  (i.e.,  “the  parties  relative  access  to  information”)    

9 .

What  Has  Changed?      The  Scope  of  Discovery  Is  Narrowed.  

1) In  General.  *  *  *  The  court  may,  for  good  cause,  issue  an  order  to    protect  a  party  or  person  from  annoyance,  embarrassment,  oppression,  or  undue  burden  or  expense,  including  one  or  more  of  the  following:  *  *  *  

(B)  specifying  terms,  including  time  and  place  or  the  allocation  of  expenses,  for  the  disclosure  or  discovery;  *  *  *  

10

New  Rule  26(c)(1)(B)  

(2)  Early  Rule  34  Requests.  

(A)    Time  to  Deliver.  More  than  21  days  after  the  summons  and  complaint  are  served  on  a  party,  a  request  under  Rule  34  may  be  delivered:  

(i)  to  that  party  by  any  other  party,  and  

(ii)  by  that  party  to  any  plaintiff  or  to  any  other  party  that  has  been  served.  

(B)  When  Considered  Served.  The  request  is  considered  as  to  have  been  served  at  the  first  Rule  26(f)  conference.  

11

New  Rule  26(d)(2)  

(B)  Responding  to  Each  Item.  For  each  item  or  category,  the  response  must  either  state  that  inspection  and  related  activities  will  be  permitted  as  requested  or  state  with  specificity  the  grounds  for  objecting  to  the  request,  including  the  reasons.  The  responding  party  may  state  that  it  will  produce  copies  of  documents  or  of  electronically  stored  information  instead  of  permitting  inspection.  The  production  must  then  be  completed  no  later  than  the  time  for  inspection  stated  in  the  request  or  another  reasonable  time  stated  in  the  response.  

(C)  Objections.  An  objection  must  state  whether  any  responsive  materials  are  being  withheld  on  the  basis  of  that  objection.  An  objection  to  part  of  a  request  must  specify  the  part  and  permit  inspection  of  the  rest.  *  *  *  

12

New  Rules  34(b)(2)(B)  and  (b)(2)(C)  

•  Avoid  boilerplate  objections  •  Avoid  responses  that  fail  to  indicate  whether  the  

producing  party  is  withholding  any  documents  

•  Avoid  responses  that  fail  to  indicate  when  the  producing  party  will  provide  responsive  documents  

13 .

 Purposes  of  the  Amendments  to  Rule  34(b)  

37(e)  FAILURE  TO  PRESERVE  ELECTRONICALLY  STORED  INFORMATION.  If  electronically  stored  information  that  should  have  been  preserved  in  the  anticipation  or  conduct  of  litigation  is  lost  because  a  party  failed  to  take  reasonable  steps  to  preserve  it,  and  it  cannot  be  restored  or  replaced  through  additional  discovery,  the  court:  

(1)  upon  finding  prejudice  to  another  party  from  loss  of  the  information,  may  order  measures  no  greater  than  necessary  to  cure  the  prejudice;  or  

(2)  only  upon  finding  that  the  party  acted  with  the  intent  to  deprive  another  party  of  the  information’s  use  in  the  litigation  may:  

(A)  presume  that  the  lost  information  was  unfavorable  to  the  party;  

(B)  instruct  the  jury  that  it  may  or  must  presume  the  information  was  unfavorable  to  the  party;  or  

(C)  dismiss  the  action  or  enter  a  default  judgment.  

14 .

New  Rule  37(e)  

•  Applies  only  to  the  loss  of  ESI,  not  to  hard-­‐copy  or  tangible  things  

•  Defers  to  common  law  on  the  trigger  and  the  scope  of  a  party’s  preservation  obligations  

•  Applies  only  if  a  party  “failed  to  take  reasonable  steps  to  preserve”  ESI  

•  Applies  only  when  lost  ESI  “cannot  be  restored  or  replaced  through  additional  discovery”    

15 .

Reflections  on  New  Rule  37(e)  

•  Does  not  use  the  words  “sanction”  or  “spoliation”  

•  Forecloses  court’s  use  of  its  inherent  power  (or  state  law)  to  sanction,  but  does  not  restrict  court’s  case  management  powers  under  Rules  16  or  26  

•  Requires  a  finding  of  prejudice  unless  there  is  an  “intent  to  deprive  another  party  of  the  information’s  use”  in  litigation      

•  Limits  curative  measures  to  those  “no  greater  than  necessary  to  cure  the  prejudice”  (e.g.,  additional  discovery,  fines,  cost-­‐shifting,  evidence  preclusion,    and  allowing  parties  to  present  evidence  or  argument  to  jury  regarding  the  loss)  

16 .

Reflections  on  New  Rule  37(e)  (Cont’d)  

The  new  rule  is  certainly  an  improvement,  but  a  few  issues  remain:  

•  Reasonableness.    The  phrase  “lost  because  a  party  failed  to  take  reasonable  steps  to  preserve”  is  ambiguous.    Different  judges  are  bound  to  have  different  views  on  what  steps  are  “reasonable,”  leaving  the  baseline  applicability  of  the  rule  unclear.    

•  Burden  of  Proof.    Under  both  subsections  (1)  and  (2),  the  new  rule  is  silent  as  to  burden  of  proof.    Does  the  party  claiming  prejudice  have  to  establish  its  existence,  or  does  the  spoliating  party  have  to  prove  lack  of  prejudice?    Likewise,  does  intent  to  deprive  need  to  be  proven  by  the  aggrieved  party  or  disproven  by  the  spoliating  party?    

•  Adverse  Inference  Instructions.    Some  argue  that  adverse  inference  instructions  can  be  remedial  –  i.e.,  their  purpose  is  to  recalibrate  the  jury’s  view  of  the  evidence,  not  to  punish  the  spoliating  party.    Are  such  instructions  still  available  under  the  new  rule?  

17 .

Open  Issues  With  Respect  to  New  Rule  37(e)